maryportfuncity 10,639 Posted January 20, 2009 The last time The Stig was outed it was Perry McCarthy outing himself and the programme killed him off. Dunno if this is the same, made to look like a journalistic scoop, or an accidental outing. Either way, I'd say the present Stig's days are numbered and some spectacular and fatal accident will appear when TG returns in December. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Octopus of Odstock 2,186 Posted January 20, 2009 Confirmation in the Times. Maryport knew a year ago. I knew three years ago. Hardly news & hardly a secret. I've told hundreds of people who he is & those of us who follow motor racing knew. And this makes front page news? Pathetic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
honez 79 Posted January 21, 2009 I knew three years ago. Hardly news & hardly a secret. I've told hundreds of people who he is & those of us who follow motor racing knew. And this makes front page news? Pathetic. I agree. If you really wanted to know, it wasn't that hard to find out. I did just that about six months ago. It rankles me somewhat that the media outed him though. It spoils some of the fun and mystique that the show plays off. It's like a "news"paper printing a headline that God doesn't exist, except as a concept to control the gullible. Anyone that's prepared to do the legwork and has more than 50% of their brain cells operational could work it out for themselves. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Terminator 13 Posted February 1, 2009 Phew, knowing his penchant for watching grown men drive pointlessly round in circles for the best part of a day, I'm relieved that Mr Odstock has NOT picked him for the DDP! In the '80s, a US wrestler, Bob Holley, used to be introduced as a "two time champion" a two-time world champion - with a nod to his motor racing feats. Jerry Lawler commented "how hard is it to keep turning left for two hunderd miles?". I have to say I agreed then when I heard it - and still agree to this day. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TDF Posted March 18, 2009 I hearby predict the end of F1. Ferrari International Assistance and Bernie(just give me the money, I support Ferrari)Ecclestone are killing it. The "gold medal" system (oops its not that is it?) seems pretty pointless, wont it just mean more penalties for teams that overtake a Ferrari? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maryportfuncity 10,639 Posted March 18, 2009 I'm guessing somebody in the same line of work as OoO has already produced a definite list of how the new - most wins - rule would have changed history had it been in force for evey champion since 1950. I'm guessing Keke - 1 win - Rosberg wouldn't have had a prayer in 1982, but some of the greats - Jim Clark, Jackie Stewart and Schumi - would still be the greats. Oh aye, and - presumably - Mansell would have two titles, the first in 1986. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Raskolnikov 0 Posted March 19, 2009 I'm guessing somebody in the same line of work as OoO has already produced a definite list of how the new - most wins - rule would have changed history had it been in force for evey champion since 1950. I'm guessing Keke - 1 win - Rosberg wouldn't have had a prayer in 1982, but some of the greats - Jim Clark, Jackie Stewart and Schumi - would still be the greats. Oh aye, and - presumably - Mansell would have two titles, the first in 1986. Here you go. TITLES THAT WOULD HAVE CHANGED1958: Actual champion: Mike Hawthorn Most wins champion: Stirling Moss 1964: Actual champion: John Surtees Most wins champion: Jim Clark 1967: Actual champion: Denny Hulme Most wins champion: Jim Clark 1977: Actual champion: Niki Lauda Most wins champion: Mario Andretti 1979: Actual champion: Jody Scheckter Most wins champion: Alan Jones 1981: Actual champion: Nelson Piquet Most wins champion: Alain Prost 1982: Actual champion: Keke Rosberg Most wins champion: Didier Pironi 1983: Actual champion: Nelson Piquet Most wins champion: Alain Prost 1984: Actual champion: Niki Lauda Most wins champion: Alain Prost 1986: Actual champion: Alain Prost Most wins champion: Nigel Mansell 1987: Actual champion: Nelson Piquet Most wins champion: Nigel Mansell 1989: Actual champion: Alain Prost Most wins champion: Ayrton Senna 2008: Actual champion: Lewis Hamilton Most wins champion: Felipe Massa Main winners would have been Mansell and Clark. Main loser would have been Piquet. Prost would have gained three but lost two. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Razor Boy 19 Posted March 19, 2009 I love F1 too but Raskolnikov you need to get out more. Do you think the KERS will explode and kill anybody ? Not many teams are rushing to get it in place for the first race could be unreliable / dangerous ! Morkish glee >:+) Razor Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Raskolnikov 0 Posted March 19, 2009 I love F1 too but Raskolnikov you need to get out more. Do you think the KERS will explode and kill anybody ? Not many teams are rushing to get it in place for the first race could be unreliable / dangerous ! Morkish glee >:+) Razor You're right I do. However, in this instance I shamelessly lifted the info from the BBC. Here's the link I should have provided the first time round. On the KERS front, I don't know nearly enough about the intricacies of it to make any sort of informed comment, although the ban on in-season testing probably has much to do with the fact that next to no teams are planning on using it in Melbourne. I imagine it will take a little while for the teams to perfect the system, and I'm guessing most felt that they needed to focus more on overall performance over the winter rather than trying to implement a system that isn't compulsory until next season. You never know though... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lard Bazaar 3,799 Posted March 19, 2009 I think these F1 drivers should slow down a bit, they could have a nasty accident haring round at such silly speeds. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maryportfuncity 10,639 Posted March 20, 2009 I checked that BBC list, so I'll cop for being as sad as Raskolnikov and a few others around here. I also thought about what it meant. It certainly shows Mansell for the out and out racer he was and Clark for the talent he was. In Mansell's case he had a habit of pushing cars to their limit and - sometimes - beyond, if he could keep them going, he push to the end to overtake. Clark's record is all the more impressive when you think he drove Lotus cars the whole time, a marque renowned for pushing technology to the limit in the sixties and creating fast but often fragile cars. On a true anorak note, Pironi would have been an interesting champion, since he would have received his trophy in a wheelchair, and we'd have had significantly fewer champions in total since Jones, Hulme, Sheckter, and Surtees never won another title. You could - I guess - swap Hawthorn and Rosberg, who never won again for Moss and Pironi, who never won titles at all, but would have under this system. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cowboy Ronnie 78 Posted March 20, 2009 Seems a bit simplistic to conclude other people would have won previous F1 titles if the new rules had been in place then. If they had, then presumably everyone's strategy would have been different, maybe there would have been more reckless overtaking attempts by people knowing that they had to win a race, not just finish 2nd, etc. For what it's worth, and I barely watch or care about F1, the rule change seems ludicrous. There was no need to change from the previous system. It's as though baby Bernie kept stomping his foot on the floor like Rumplestiltskin until they implemented his stupid way of doing things, and the FIA or whoever makes the rules felt sorry for him because his wife just divorced him. I hope it ends up that the guy who wins the most races finishes 40+ points behind whoever finishes 2nd overall. And if anyone dies or gets seriously injured attempting a reckless overtaking maneuver because they felt they needed to win a race, then I hope the white dwarf sleeps well at night. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maryportfuncity 10,639 Posted March 20, 2009 Fair points CR, in fact reckless late overtaking attempts from the fifties to mid-seventies might easily have resulted in some of the aforementioned 'champions' quite literally crashing and burning. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cowboy Ronnie 78 Posted March 20, 2009 And now, nine days before the first race of the season, they've changed the rules back to how they were. The F1 circus rolls on Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Azraelle 1 Posted March 21, 2009 And now, nine days before the first race of the season, they've changed the rules back to how they were. The F1 circus rolls on I'm glad common sense has prevailed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rotten Ali 600 Posted March 23, 2009 All this mucking around with planning for this years points system is doing my head in. In my eyes it needs to be changed. Giving the winner 10 points and the 2nd placed driver 8 points is only rewarding the winner to a relative 2 point advantage. Now that's just not enough of a bonus to create competative racing. It becomes more of a reliabilty test. Fail that test once in one race and it will take a competative driver 5 races to make back that loss. I like the idea of a medal system but it's too raw to impose at a moments notice. The sport has history, and its all guarded in facts like how many points drivers gained in their careers. So it needs to be of this type of format. But then the points system has been changed so many times in the past from: 8,6,4,3,2,+1pt for fastest lap (best 4 scores from 7 races) 1950 8,6,4,3,2,+1pt for fastest lap (best 4 scores from 8 races) 1951 & 1952 8,6,4,3,2,+1pt for fastest lap (best 4 scores from 9 races) 1953 8,6,4,3,2,+1pt for fastest lap (best 5 scores from 9 races) 1954 8,6,4,3,2,+1pt for fastest lap (best 5 scores from 7 races) 1955 8,6,4,3,2,+1pt for fastest lap (best 5 scores from 8 races) 1956 & 1957 8,6,4,3,2,+1pt for fastest lap (best 6 scores from 11 races) 1958 8,6,4,3,2,+1pt for fastest lap (best 5 scores from 9 races) 1959 8,6,4,3,2,1 (best 6 scores from 10 races) 1960 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 8 races) 1961 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 9 races) 1962 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 6 scores from 10 races) 1963, '64 & 65 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 9 races) 1966 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 1st 6 races plus best 4 scores from next 5 races) 1967 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 1st 6 races plus best 5 scores from next 6 races) 1968 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 1st 6 races plus best 4 scores from next 5 races) 1969 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 6 scores from 1st 7 races plus best 5 scores from next 6 races) 1970 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 1st 6 races plus best 4 scores from next 5 races) 1971 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 1st 6 races plus best 5 scores from next 6 races) 1972 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 7 scores from 1st 8 races plus best 6 scores from next 7 races) 1973 & '74 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 7 scores from 1st 8 races plus best 5 scores from next 6 races) 1975 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 7 scores from 1st 8 races plus best 7 scores from next 8 races) 1976 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 8 scores from 1st 9 races plus best 7 scores from next 8 races) 1977 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 7 scores from 1st 8 races plus best 7 scores from next 8 races) 1978 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 4 scores from 1st 7 races plus best 4 scores from next 8 races) 1979 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 1st 7 races plus best 5 scores from next 7 races) 1980 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 11 scores from 15 races) 1981 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 11 scores from 16 races) 1982 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 11 scores from 15 races) 1983 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 11 scores from 16 races) 1984 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 11 scores from 16 races) 1985, to 1990 10,6,4,3,2,1 - 1991, to 2002 10,8,6,5,4,3,2,1 - 2003, to 2008 So it's not suprising that it was needed to be changed. Between 1961 and 1990 a points shortfall of 33% existed, and between '91 and 2002 a points shortfall of 40% existed. For the last 6 years it's been just a 20% points shortfall. Now, I put it to you that the range of a points shortfall needs to be within 33% to 40%. The plan was to increase to 12 points for a win - at that point keeping 8 points for second would be better. Then a shortfall of about 33% to 3rd place would gain that driver 5 points. 4rd place - a 20% shortfall = 4 points 5th place - 3 points 6th place - 2 points I still like rewarding minor places but would award these:- 7th place - 1 point 8th places - half a point I also like the idea of getting back to awarding 1 point for fastest lap. Plus I would award pole position with half a point, and most laps led with a further half a point bonus. Capping a total to "a best of so many scores" helps in my view and I would like to see this return at a best 6 scores from the first half of the season and a best 6 from the second half of the season no matter how many races are run. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TAFKAG 70 Posted March 23, 2009 All this mucking around with planning for this years points system is doing my head in.In my eyes it needs to be changed. Giving the winner 10 points and the 2nd placed driver 8 points is only rewarding the winner to a relative 2 point advantage. Now that's just not enough of a bonus to create competative racing. It becomes more of a reliabilty test. Fail that test once in one race and it will take a competative driver 5 races to make back that loss. I like the idea of a medal system but it's too raw to impose at a moments notice. The sport has history, and its all guarded in facts like how many points drivers gained in their careers. So it needs to be of this type of format. But then the points system has been changed so many times in the past from: 8,6,4,3,2,+1pt for fastest lap (best 4 scores from 7 races) 1950 8,6,4,3,2,+1pt for fastest lap (best 4 scores from 8 races) 1951 & 1952 8,6,4,3,2,+1pt for fastest lap (best 4 scores from 9 races) 1953 8,6,4,3,2,+1pt for fastest lap (best 5 scores from 9 races) 1954 8,6,4,3,2,+1pt for fastest lap (best 5 scores from 7 races) 1955 8,6,4,3,2,+1pt for fastest lap (best 5 scores from 8 races) 1956 & 1957 8,6,4,3,2,+1pt for fastest lap (best 6 scores from 11 races) 1958 8,6,4,3,2,+1pt for fastest lap (best 5 scores from 9 races) 1959 8,6,4,3,2,1 (best 6 scores from 10 races) 1960 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 8 races) 1961 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 9 races) 1962 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 6 scores from 10 races) 1963, '64 & 65 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 9 races) 1966 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 1st 6 races plus best 4 scores from next 5 races) 1967 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 1st 6 races plus best 5 scores from next 6 races) 1968 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 1st 6 races plus best 4 scores from next 5 races) 1969 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 6 scores from 1st 7 races plus best 5 scores from next 6 races) 1970 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 1st 6 races plus best 4 scores from next 5 races) 1971 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 1st 6 races plus best 5 scores from next 6 races) 1972 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 7 scores from 1st 8 races plus best 6 scores from next 7 races) 1973 & '74 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 7 scores from 1st 8 races plus best 5 scores from next 6 races) 1975 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 7 scores from 1st 8 races plus best 7 scores from next 8 races) 1976 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 8 scores from 1st 9 races plus best 7 scores from next 8 races) 1977 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 7 scores from 1st 8 races plus best 7 scores from next 8 races) 1978 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 4 scores from 1st 7 races plus best 4 scores from next 8 races) 1979 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 1st 7 races plus best 5 scores from next 7 races) 1980 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 11 scores from 15 races) 1981 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 11 scores from 16 races) 1982 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 11 scores from 15 races) 1983 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 11 scores from 16 races) 1984 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 11 scores from 16 races) 1985, to 1990 10,6,4,3,2,1 - 1991, to 2002 10,8,6,5,4,3,2,1 - 2003, to 2008 So it's not suprising that it was needed to be changed. Between 1961 and 1990 a points shortfall of 33% existed, and between '91 and 2002 a points shortfall of 40% existed. For the last 6 years it's been just a 20% points shortfall. Now, I put it to you that the range of a points shortfall needs to be within 33% to 40%. The plan was to increase to 12 points for a win - at that point keeping 8 points for second would be better. Then a shortfall of about 33% to 3rd place would gain that driver 5 points. 4rd place - a 20% shortfall = 4 points 5th place - 3 points 6th place - 2 points I still like rewarding minor places but would award these:- 7th place - 1 point 8th places - half a point I also like the idea of getting back to awarding 1 point for fastest lap. Plus I would award pole position with half a point, and most laps led with a further half a point bonus. Capping a total to "a best of so many scores" helps in my view and I would like to see this return at a best 6 scores from the first half of the season and a best 6 from the second half of the season no matter how many races are run. Funnily enough, I was just thinking exactly the same thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lard Bazaar 3,799 Posted March 23, 2009 All this mucking around with planning for this years points system is doing my head in.In my eyes it needs to be changed. Giving the winner 10 points and the 2nd placed driver 8 points is only rewarding the winner to a relative 2 point advantage. Now that's just not enough of a bonus to create competative racing. It becomes more of a reliabilty test. Fail that test once in one race and it will take a competative driver 5 races to make back that loss. I like the idea of a medal system but it's too raw to impose at a moments notice. The sport has history, and its all guarded in facts like how many points drivers gained in their careers. So it needs to be of this type of format. But then the points system has been changed so many times in the past from: 8,6,4,3,2,+1pt for fastest lap (best 4 scores from 7 races) 1950 8,6,4,3,2,+1pt for fastest lap (best 4 scores from 8 races) 1951 & 1952 8,6,4,3,2,+1pt for fastest lap (best 4 scores from 9 races) 1953 8,6,4,3,2,+1pt for fastest lap (best 5 scores from 9 races) 1954 8,6,4,3,2,+1pt for fastest lap (best 5 scores from 7 races) 1955 8,6,4,3,2,+1pt for fastest lap (best 5 scores from 8 races) 1956 & 1957 8,6,4,3,2,+1pt for fastest lap (best 6 scores from 11 races) 1958 8,6,4,3,2,+1pt for fastest lap (best 5 scores from 9 races) 1959 8,6,4,3,2,1 (best 6 scores from 10 races) 1960 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 8 races) 1961 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 9 races) 1962 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 6 scores from 10 races) 1963, '64 & 65 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 9 races) 1966 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 1st 6 races plus best 4 scores from next 5 races) 1967 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 1st 6 races plus best 5 scores from next 6 races) 1968 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 1st 6 races plus best 4 scores from next 5 races) 1969 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 6 scores from 1st 7 races plus best 5 scores from next 6 races) 1970 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 1st 6 races plus best 4 scores from next 5 races) 1971 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 1st 6 races plus best 5 scores from next 6 races) 1972 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 7 scores from 1st 8 races plus best 6 scores from next 7 races) 1973 & '74 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 7 scores from 1st 8 races plus best 5 scores from next 6 races) 1975 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 7 scores from 1st 8 races plus best 7 scores from next 8 races) 1976 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 8 scores from 1st 9 races plus best 7 scores from next 8 races) 1977 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 7 scores from 1st 8 races plus best 7 scores from next 8 races) 1978 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 4 scores from 1st 7 races plus best 4 scores from next 8 races) 1979 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 1st 7 races plus best 5 scores from next 7 races) 1980 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 11 scores from 15 races) 1981 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 11 scores from 16 races) 1982 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 11 scores from 15 races) 1983 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 11 scores from 16 races) 1984 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 11 scores from 16 races) 1985, to 1990 10,6,4,3,2,1 - 1991, to 2002 10,8,6,5,4,3,2,1 - 2003, to 2008 So it's not suprising that it was needed to be changed. Between 1961 and 1990 a points shortfall of 33% existed, and between '91 and 2002 a points shortfall of 40% existed. For the last 6 years it's been just a 20% points shortfall. Now, I put it to you that the range of a points shortfall needs to be within 33% to 40%. The plan was to increase to 12 points for a win - at that point keeping 8 points for second would be better. Then a shortfall of about 33% to 3rd place would gain that driver 5 points. 4rd place - a 20% shortfall = 4 points 5th place - 3 points 6th place - 2 points I still like rewarding minor places but would award these:- 7th place - 1 point 8th places - half a point I also like the idea of getting back to awarding 1 point for fastest lap. Plus I would award pole position with half a point, and most laps led with a further half a point bonus. Capping a total to "a best of so many scores" helps in my view and I would like to see this return at a best 6 scores from the first half of the season and a best 6 from the second half of the season no matter how many races are run. Yet again, you have left me speechless with your capacity for organisational lists of stuff (that's a technical term). I love you, Rotten Ali, and I want to bear your children. After I've calved Mary's down, obviously. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rotten Ali 600 Posted March 23, 2009 All this mucking around with planning for this years points system is doing my head in.In my eyes it needs to be changed. Giving the winner 10 points and the 2nd placed driver 8 points is only rewarding the winner to a relative 2 point advantage. Now that's just not enough of a bonus to create competative racing. It becomes more of a reliabilty test. Fail that test once in one race and it will take a competative driver 5 races to make back that loss. I like the idea of a medal system but it's too raw to impose at a moments notice. The sport has history, and its all guarded in facts like how many points drivers gained in their careers. So it needs to be of this type of format. But then the points system has been changed so many times in the past from: 8,6,4,3,2,+1pt for fastest lap (best 4 scores from 7 races) 1950 8,6,4,3,2,+1pt for fastest lap (best 4 scores from 8 races) 1951 & 1952 8,6,4,3,2,+1pt for fastest lap (best 4 scores from 9 races) 1953 8,6,4,3,2,+1pt for fastest lap (best 5 scores from 9 races) 1954 8,6,4,3,2,+1pt for fastest lap (best 5 scores from 7 races) 1955 8,6,4,3,2,+1pt for fastest lap (best 5 scores from 8 races) 1956 & 1957 8,6,4,3,2,+1pt for fastest lap (best 6 scores from 11 races) 1958 8,6,4,3,2,+1pt for fastest lap (best 5 scores from 9 races) 1959 8,6,4,3,2,1 (best 6 scores from 10 races) 1960 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 8 races) 1961 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 9 races) 1962 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 6 scores from 10 races) 1963, '64 & 65 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 9 races) 1966 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 1st 6 races plus best 4 scores from next 5 races) 1967 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 1st 6 races plus best 5 scores from next 6 races) 1968 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 1st 6 races plus best 4 scores from next 5 races) 1969 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 6 scores from 1st 7 races plus best 5 scores from next 6 races) 1970 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 1st 6 races plus best 4 scores from next 5 races) 1971 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 1st 6 races plus best 5 scores from next 6 races) 1972 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 7 scores from 1st 8 races plus best 6 scores from next 7 races) 1973 & '74 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 7 scores from 1st 8 races plus best 5 scores from next 6 races) 1975 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 7 scores from 1st 8 races plus best 7 scores from next 8 races) 1976 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 8 scores from 1st 9 races plus best 7 scores from next 8 races) 1977 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 7 scores from 1st 8 races plus best 7 scores from next 8 races) 1978 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 4 scores from 1st 7 races plus best 4 scores from next 8 races) 1979 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 5 scores from 1st 7 races plus best 5 scores from next 7 races) 1980 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 11 scores from 15 races) 1981 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 11 scores from 16 races) 1982 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 11 scores from 15 races) 1983 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 11 scores from 16 races) 1984 9,6,4,3,2,1 (best 11 scores from 16 races) 1985, to 1990 10,6,4,3,2,1 - 1991, to 2002 10,8,6,5,4,3,2,1 - 2003, to 2008 So it's not suprising that it was needed to be changed. Between 1961 and 1990 a points shortfall of 33% existed, and between '91 and 2002 a points shortfall of 40% existed. For the last 6 years it's been just a 20% points shortfall. Now, I put it to you that the range of a points shortfall needs to be within 33% to 40%. The plan was to increase to 12 points for a win - at that point keeping 8 points for second would be better. Then a shortfall of about 33% to 3rd place would gain that driver 5 points. 4rd place - a 20% shortfall = 4 points 5th place - 3 points 6th place - 2 points I still like rewarding minor places but would award these:- 7th place - 1 point 8th places - half a point I also like the idea of getting back to awarding 1 point for fastest lap. Plus I would award pole position with half a point, and most laps led with a further half a point bonus. Capping a total to "a best of so many scores" helps in my view and I would like to see this return at a best 6 scores from the first half of the season and a best 6 from the second half of the season no matter how many races are run. Yet again, you have left me speechless with your capacity for organisational lists of stuff (that's a technical term). I love you, Rotten Ali, and I want to bear your children. After I've calved Mary's down, obviously. Oh, LOL, that's very nice of you to think of me in this way Lardy but my wife would be one to take us both apart at each and every joint of our combined bodies if it did indeed happen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Statto Posted March 23, 2009 lots of impressive numbers Do we have a celebrity in our midst? Still don't understand the enjoyment of watching men in a life-sized version of Scalextric set go round in circles without the added whiff of ozone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rotten Ali 600 Posted March 23, 2009 Ok - sometime when I was young, I did lap charts and number crunching to award points based on position held each lap. Basically to win each Grand Prix flag to flag (starting on Pole and not losing the lead would win the driver 10 points. Take the 1987 Italian GP. 50 Laps. Each Lap led would be worth 0.18 points. Piquet started from pole made a bad start but got the lead back going into the first chicane and led till a pitstop on lap 24. Senna wanted to go non-stop but as his tyres went off & so did he on lap 43, letting Piquet back into the lead. So dividing 9 points up into a division of the number of laps would award Piquet 5.58 points and Senna 3.42 points. Then you look at second place and award 6 points for the 50 laps = 0.12 points per lap. Mansell was second on laps 1, 19 & 20. That would earn him 0.36 points. Boutsen had 19 laps in 2nd place, (2.28pts). Senna had 9 laps in second, (1.08pts). Piquet was in 2nd for 19 laps, (2.28pts). Then 3rd place, 4 points are divided @ 0.08pts/lap. Berger 17 laps, (1.36pts). Mansell, 30 laps (2.4pts). Boutsen 2 laps, (0.16pts). Senna 1 lap (0.08pts). 4th places splits 3pts (0.06pts/lap). Boutsen 11 laps, (0.66pts). Mansell 15 laps, (0.9pts) Berger 23 laps, (1.38pts). Senna 1 lap, (0.06pts). 5th place splits 2 points (0.04pts/lap). Prost 4 laps (0.16pts) Senna 16 laps (0.64pts) Mansell 2 laps, (0.08). Boutsen 18 laps (0.72pts). Berger 10 laps (0.4pts) 6th place spilts 1 point (0.02pts/lap). Senna 4 laps (0.08pts). Prost 3 laps, (0.06pts) Alboreto 6 laps (0.12pts). Johansson 36 laps (0.72pts) Fabi 1 lap (0.02pts) Plus the winner of the GP gets an extra point. So add that all together. 8.86pts Piquet -----------was 1st with 9pts 5.36pts Senna -----------was 2nd with 6pts 3.82pts Boutsen ---------was 5th with 2pts 3.74pts Mansell ----------was 3rd with 4pts 3.14pts Berger ----------was 4th with 3pts 0.72pts Johansson ------was 6th with 1pt 0.22pts Prost ------------was 4 laps down. 0.12pts Alboreto --------dnf turbo failed. 0.02pts Fabi -------------was 7th. This way the hope is all the way down the field you have all the top drivers battling for position for as much of the race without putting themselves in too much jepardy that blows a good finish. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lard Bazaar 3,799 Posted March 23, 2009 Ok - sometime when I was young, I did lap charts and number crunching to award points based on position held each lap. Basically to win each Grand Prix flag to flag (starting on Pole and not losing the lead would win the driver 10 points. Take the 1987 Italian GP. 50 Laps. Each Lap led would be worth 0.18 points. Piquet started from pole made a bad start but got the lead back going into the first chicane and led till a pitstop on lap 24. Senna wanted to go non-stop but as his tyres went off & so did he on lap 43, letting Piquet back into the lead. So dividing 9 points up into a division of the number of laps would award Piquet 5.58 points and Senna 3.42 points. Then you look at second place and award 6 points for the 50 laps = 0.12 points per lap. Mansell was second on laps 1, 19 & 20. That would earn him 0.36 points. Boutsen had 19 laps in 2nd place, (2.28pts). Senna had 9 laps in second, (1.08pts). Piquet was in 2nd for 19 laps, (2.28pts). Then 3rd place, 4 points are divided @ 0.08pts/lap. Berger 17 laps, (1.36pts). Mansell, 30 laps (2.4pts). Boutsen 2 laps, (0.16pts). Senna 1 lap (0.08pts). 4th places splits 3pts (0.06pts/lap). Boutsen 11 laps, (0.66pts). Mansell 15 laps, (0.9pts) Berger 23 laps, (1.38pts). Senna 1 lap, (0.06pts). 5th place splits 2 points (0.04pts/lap). Prost 4 laps (0.16pts) Senna 16 laps (0.64pts) Mansell 2 laps, (0.08). Boutsen 18 laps (0.72pts). Berger 10 laps (0.4pts) 6th place spilts 1 point (0.02pts/lap). Senna 4 laps (0.08pts). Prost 3 laps, (0.06pts) Alboreto 6 laps (0.12pts). Johansson 36 laps (0.72pts) Fabi 1 lap (0.02pts) Plus the winner of the GP gets an extra point. So add that all together. 8.86pts Piquet -----------was 1st with 9pts 5.36pts Senna -----------was 2nd with 6pts 3.84pts Boutsen ---------was 5th with 2pts 3.74pts Mansell ----------was 3rd with 4pts 3.14pts Berger ----------was 4th with 3pts 0.72pts Johansson ------was 6th with 1pt 0.22pts Prost ------------was 4 laps down. 0.12pts Alboreto --------dnf turbo failed. 0.02pts Fabi -------------was 7th. This way the hope is all the way down the field you have all the top drivers battling for position for as much of the race without putting themselves in too much jepardy that blows a good finish. I have now just come in my pants. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
To die for 3 Posted March 23, 2009 This way the hope is all the way down the field you have all the top drivers battling for position for as much of the race without putting themselves in too much jepardy that blows a good finish. Now I can see where Lardy is coming from but.... No actually I can't, let them drive fast, crash lots and pick a scoring system that pisses Bernie off. Budget caps, pointless technology curbs, everything green, next they'll be racing 2CVs round a dodgem track. Add to that the tame "safe" circuits with "proper" hospitality areas in countries who's F1 supporters have enough cash to buy a race and where's the spectacle? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maryportfuncity 10,639 Posted March 23, 2009 2008 may go down as one of the safest F1 seasons in history, and it still produced a few Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
themaninblack 2,112 Posted March 23, 2009 Why don't they keep the points system but use it for the constructors championship. Then for the driver's championship a podium finish would get points: 9 pts 1st 6 pts 2nd 3 pts 3rd What really matters is that's back on the BBC, with 'The Chain' as the theme tune... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
